Talk:Carlo Ginzburg

http://research.yale.edu/wwkelly/publications/83_J-Peasant-Studies_11-1.pdf gives HTTP 404 Not Found —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.198.235.115 (talk • contribs)

I removed the material from Gale. For one, it is not written in a neutral manner and reads like a hagiography ("worlds leading historian"). It is also poorly organized, and doesn't really say anything new that is not already said, and could be reduced to one of two sentences of actual facts. Does the editor who added this material know anything about Ginzberg besides what Gale says? The career section from Gale contradicts the facts in the lead paragraph of the article, so either our article is wrong, or Gale is wrong, so someone needs to investigate that - my guess is Gale is wrong because it is old, only going up to the late 1990s. -- Stbalbach 15:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say a re-write is in order more than a deletion, on the "Career" section. The other section, while referenced (I do so hate to delete ref'ed material) is pretty puff, so I concur there. --mordicai. 15:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried, I spent 20 minutes trying to re-write it and gave up and decided a delete was better in the hopes the original editor will come back and spend more time or add other material. I'm not sure what to do with the career section as it seems to contradict basic facts of where he was and when -- I've seen Gale be wrong before, it's a source of last resort, and this version in the article has withstood a test of time from multiple editors, so I am more inclined to keep it. -- Stbalbach 15:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to organize his books by their original release instead of by their translation date? "Night Battles" precedes "The Cheese and the Worms" both methodologically and chronologically, though the books were not translated in that order. -- Harpermd (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carlo Ginzburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130318012403/http://www2.unibo.it:80/Annuari/Annu9597/final/c1/p3/sp2/ssp2/index.html to http://www2.unibo.it/Annuari/Annu9597/final/c1/p3/sp2/ssp2/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141222042117/http://www.hup.fi/collegium/events/Purry.pdf to http://www.hup.fi/collegium/events/Purry.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carlo Ginzburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140403002431/https://www.amphilsoc.org/members/electedApril2013 to https://www.amphilsoc.org/members/electedApril2013

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

I have recently changed the lead image with one where, in my opinion, the subject has a better facial expression overall, and there’s starker contrast with the background. An IP keeps reverting back. Opinions? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not, in principle, opposed to changes in the main photos of entries, but there are parameters that must be observed, such as the resolution, composition, and centering of the suggested photos. The photo that the user IvanScrooge98 proposes is, without a doubt, technically inferior to the original photo. Furthermore, both photos were taken on the same day and by the same photographer. Wouldn't it be better for the user in question to find another photo that reconciles their aesthetic taste with the technical quality required for a portrait in a biographical encyclopedia entry? ~2026-36120-74 (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

There are no other portraits available on Commons, as you know. This is not an article about photography, this is an article about the subject of the photographs we’re discussing. The way the subject appears should take priority over a stylistic analysis of the available pictures. For the purpose of Wikipedia, the second image is of great quality too, especially compared to what we have for many other subjects. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Ivan,

I know very well that there are no other photos of this eminent historian on Wikimedia Commons, but that doesn't stop you from adding other photos of him to that site. A portrait in a biographical entry must observe technical criteria such as those I have already mentioned, and cannot be limited to recording facial expressions or the mood of the person being profiled. Any encyclopedia evaluates the technical quality of the portraits in its biographical entries. ~2026-36120-74 (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You must be kidding me. You can only add freely licensed images on Commons, or images you took yourself. Guess what? Nobody can’t take any new pictures of a deceased person. These are the images available and we should use one of them, unless someone uploads their own past pictures on Commons. As I said, both photographs are of great quality for the purposes of Wikipedia. Only you seem to notice technical issues in the image where he doesn’t look like he’s staring into the void. This is why the second is a better alternative imo, because it is of equally good quality with a more suitable facial expression. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not joking or making fun of you, Ivan. I know about the copyright limitations regarding the publication of photos on Wikimedia Commons. I recognize that it's difficult to find photos of illustrious personalities that are in the public domain, but as you yourself acknowledged, it's perfectly possible for a user to add new photos of biographed figures to the Wikimedia Commons collection. The original photo seems more appropriate to be a portrait of the Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg because it has a clean composition and shows him centered in the Wikipedia entry dedicated to him, which I hope will be expanded and improved soon. ~2026-36120-74 (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, but I cannot add any or I would have, don’t you think? Not that I think it’s needed, the second picture is perfect. And you still haven’t explained how it is so much worse than the other. I get it, the one you prefer has a “good composition”, but the other one does too, if not more. And additionally he looks better in it. These are the points you failed to address. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Ivan,

The original photo shows Carlo Ginzburg centered in the infobox of the biographical entry that Wikipedia dedicated to him, while the other photo available on Wikimedia Commons does not. Furthermore, the photo you prefer, you must agree with me, is too small to be an appropriate portrait for a biographical entry. You say that the original photo shows the historian looking into space, but that expression is typical of figures in portraits. In any case, I think we are discussing nitpicking details that add little to the entry on the Italian historian in question. If you can get the support of senior Wikipedia editors, I will not insist on keeping the original photo. ~2026-36120-74 (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

He is centered in the second picture too, he just has his head tilted. And if it’s too small, the size can be adjusted. You really are the one insisting over details that ultimately distract from considering the overall look of the image. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Ivan, I honestly see few differences between the Italian historian's facial expressions in the two photos. The original photo follows a traditional biographical portrait style, while the one you prefer captured the historian in a more spontaneous or candid pose. The historian's head is tilted in the photo you chose, which prevents him from appearing properly centered in the infobox of this entry. The presence of a microphone in the smaller photo is a distracting element that negatively interferes with its composition. There must be some reasons why the original photo of this entry is present in almost all biographical entries of this remarkable historian in other versions of Wikipedia, don't you think? To summarize my point of view: neither of the two photos of Carlo Ginzburg available on Wikimedia Commons appeals to me much, but the larger photo seems the most suitable to be the main image of this entry for the reasons I have already explained. ~2026-36120-74 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Should the long-standing, high-resolution infobox photo of Carlo Ginzburg be replaced with the lower-resolution, tilted photo showing a microphone?

• Option A: Keep the current, stable, high-resolution portrait.
• Option B: Change to the smaller, alternative photo proposed by the other editor.

Please provide your rationale below based on Wikipedia's image standards. ~2026-36748-84 (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Support Option A. My detailed technical arguments regarding resolution, framing, and visual quality are already stated in my comments below above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-36748-84 (talk • contribs) 26 June 2026

Support option B which you imply is of low resolution when it isn’t. See discussion below above. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Ivan, I have indeed read the summaries of your recent edits to this article. Please understand, once and for all, that the photo you suggested for the infobox has not received support from even a single user so far. Until the photo you proposed gains the endorsement of a majority of other editors, the original photo must remain. As you are not a novice to this collaborative encyclopedia, you know very well—or should know—that contested changes to an article can only be implemented once consensus is reached. There is a clear impasse between us regarding which photo should be selected for this article's infobox. Until this impasse is resolved—whether through mediation or the deliberation of other users—the *status quo ante* (the original infobox photo) must remain in place. ~2026-36774-30 (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Ivan, it was not my intention to delete the message calling for other editors that you had posted in the infobox description. I should have restored the original photo while taking care to keep the message. I am still not very familiar with the digital world. Please accept my sincere apologies for the oversight. ~2026-36774-30 (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Option A While both images are of good quality, I think this image is formatted in a more natural portrait style because Ginzburg is looking straight into the camera and his head is not tilted. The image also has a more common portrait shape and shows some of Ginzburg’s body, while the other image appears more cut-off from the bottom. And while Ginzburg’s body is centered in the other image, the tilt makes it appear shifted to the side. John Adams 362 (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)